From: platootje@netscape.net
Date: Tue Jul 12 2005 - 16:06:43 BST
Hello again Ham,
I said:
>
>> You reply on my statement that buddha-nature concerns:
>> Both other and not-other, there's no difference.
>
To which you reply:
>Your meaning here was somewhat ambiguous. If your assertion is that
>buddha-nature (Essence) encompasses both beingness (other) and nothingness
>(not-other), I agree. However, I took your statement to mean that there was
>no difference between other and not-other, which is of course false logic.
What I ment was more precisely that there is no difference when it comes to buddha-nature between X and not-X (Y) when X, Y and Z are not-devine. Because for Z they're bot not-Z, for Y the others are both not-Y, etc.
So because X, Y and Z are all in turn other or not-other, they all posess buddha-nature, they're all rooted in Essence.
You say:
>The "vision" you've expressed is quite valid. It's just that Euclid's logic
>does not apply to concepts such as Buddha-nature and Essence.
There's a point in metaphysics, where logic looses its meaning.
You say:
>Since any metaphysical proposition should be supportable by logic, let me
>try to express Cusa's theory in my own way. I quoted Prof. Clyde Miller's
>statement:
>
>"For any given non-divine X, X is not other than X, and X is other than not
>X. What is unique about the divine not other is precisely that it is not
>other than either X or not X ."
>
>By the logic of existents, for any given "X", X = not other, Y = other, and
>Z = other.
>But Essence (Buddha-nature) is not an "existent", hence existential logic
>does not apply.
>
>For Essence "E", an existent is a "not-other", and the logic is as follows:
>E = not other, X = not other, Y = not other, and Z = not other.
>In other words, for Essence every existent is a not-other; indeed, all
>existence is not-other. But this "not-other" is "not other than Essence"
>because Essence = not-other.
Okay, I agree.
You asked:
>> Do you have any problems with the Cusan theory of Not-other as the Source?
>
I replied:
>> Depends how you regard the individual self, the ego.
>> For me this is a manifistation of duality. But the true Not-other
>> is Not-other from any perspective? Then I guess I would regard
>> that as a good theory for the source.
>
To which you replied:
>The individual self (negate) really has no beingness of its own (see my
>Eckhart quotes). Its epistemological nature is the beingness borrowed from
>other. The brain and nervous system -- the instruments of its sensibility
>and rationalization -- are other to the self, as are all the entities that
>are "objectivized' as the content of proprietary awareness.
>
>I haven't read much of Buddhism, but I think it holds to a similar view.
>Which may also explain why Pirsig has so little to say about the self.
I'm not sure about this one. I feel our ego or self is indeed a product of duality, or in your words "Its epistemological nature is the beingness borrowed from other". But I do not think it's a product of the brain and the nervous system. From a Buddistic point of view (and I may be wrong as I'm by no means an expert), as long as your mind still has attachements (I say 'is dualistic') you will re-incarnate into another live. When you're free of all attachements, of all judging, so if you just see and don't judge/value/label, the cycle of re-incarnation will end. The Nirvana then equals unity or essence. In Pirsig's terms: a Quality Event is when DQ causes a new pattern of SQ (maybe not exact). I say, this is not the goal, let DQ be DQ and get rid of SQ.
About the buddhist path you comment:
>That's a rather sombre apotheosis. I can't define a particular "path" but I
>believe there is a goal. That goal is to develop our sensibilities to the
>extent that we can find enrichment from the values of the life-experience,
>to discover the sanctity of human life, and to defend the Freedom that is
>every individual's potential. These "conditional" values represent what we
>are essentially; which is to say, Value is the essence of man.
I'm just not sure if this is 'development' of sensibilities, or 'loosing the filters on your senses'.
You conclude:
>Reinier, if you can see your way to arguing for Unity as the Primary Source,
>I'll be happy to join you in a renewed effort to present it to the
>"nihilists" in this MoQ community. Are you prepared to wage such a battle?
>We'll need plenty of "acceptable" literary references as support material.
>(I can come up with some.)
I'm not big on literature reference. I can defend only what I feel is true, and in order to feel it I must really understand it, or so to say, I must make it 'my own'. The discussion over the last week or so with you, is one that comes from the heart, not from the books, and I like it that way.
Nobody 'must' believe what I believe. I just hope that there will be plenty of threads where I feel I can contribute (looking at the current threads I don't have that feeling).
This discussion with you has been brilliant so far, 2 people really interested and listening. You strike me more as the internet warrior type then I am, I would gladly support you in any threads, as long as I feel you're making more sense then the other :-).
Kind regards,
Reinier.
__________________________________________________________________
Switch to Netscape Internet Service.
As low as $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at http://isp.netscape.com/register
Netscape. Just the Net You Need.
New! Netscape Toolbar for Internet Explorer
Search from anywhere on the Web and block those annoying pop-ups.
Download now at http://channels.netscape.com/ns/search/install.jsp
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 12 2005 - 16:18:37 BST